Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Security > Port scan attempts

Reply
Thread Tools

Port scan attempts

 
 
Colonel Flagg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) says...
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:00:47 GMT, Bit Twister
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:09:02 +0530, Ravi wrote:
> >> "Date: 22/12/2003 Time: 22:52:16 (GMT +5:30)
> >> Port scan detected from address 206.204.10.200.
> >> Blocked further access for 30 minutes after detecting at
> >> least 6 ports being probed."
> >>
> >> Is there a way I can report abouse for this?
> >>
> >> It appears that I must report abuse to:
> >> (E-Mail Removed)
> >>
> >> but that address is invalid - I believe.
> >>
> >> So what can I do?

> >
> >Let's see,
> >host 206.204.10.200
> >200.10.204.206.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer security.symantec.com.
> >
> >Hmm, belongs to symantec.com
> >
> >I bet there may be a Contact Us in their web page http://symantec.com/

>
> If that is correct then my mistake!
> I actually asked them to scan my ports using their security
> check site.
>
> But then is not the abuse address that I wrote correct?
>
> TIA.
>
>



you're an idiot.

go ahead folks, find some small way to state this guy isn't an idiot....
I dare you.... he ASK symantec to scan him, then he REPORTS them for
abuse....



--
Colonel Flagg
http://www.internetwarzone.org/

Privacy at a click:
http://www.cotse.net

Q: How many Bill Gates does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: None, he just defines Darkness? as the new industry standard..."

"...I see stupid people."
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ravi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:59:07 -0500, Colonel Flagg
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>(E-Mail Removed) says...
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:00:47 GMT, Bit Twister
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:09:02 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>> >> "Date: 22/12/2003 Time: 22:52:16 (GMT +5:30)
>> >> Port scan detected from address 206.204.10.200.
>> >> Blocked further access for 30 minutes after detecting at
>> >> least 6 ports being probed."
>> >>
>> >> Is there a way I can report abouse for this?
>> >>
>> >> It appears that I must report abuse to:
>> >> (E-Mail Removed)
>> >>
>> >> but that address is invalid - I believe.
>> >>
>> >> So what can I do?
>> >
>> >Let's see,
>> >host 206.204.10.200
>> >200.10.204.206.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer security.symantec.com.
>> >
>> >Hmm, belongs to symantec.com
>> >
>> >I bet there may be a Contact Us in their web page http://symantec.com/

>>
>> If that is correct then my mistake!
>> I actually asked them to scan my ports using their security
>> check site.
>>
>> But then is not the abuse address that I wrote correct?
>>
>> TIA.
>>
>>

>
>
>you're an idiot.


Hey everone makes mistakes!
I did not know it was symantec's ip!

>go ahead folks, find some small way to state this guy isn't an idiot....
>I dare you.... he ASK symantec to scan him, then he REPORTS them for
>abuse....


--
main(){char s[37]="CSbwjAjocpy/mw!PS!sbwjAeftqbnnfe/dpn";
int i;for(i=0;i<36;putchar(s[i++]-1));return 0;}


-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ravi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "Colonel Flagg"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:00:47 GMT, Bit Twister
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 00:09:02 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>> >> "Date: 22/12/2003 Time: 22:52:16 (GMT +5:30) Port scan detected from
>> >> address 206.204.10.200. Blocked further access for 30 minutes after
>> >> detecting at least 6 ports being probed."
>> >>
>> >> Is there a way I can report abouse for this?
>> >>
>> >> It appears that I must report abuse to: (E-Mail Removed)
>> >>
>> >> but that address is invalid - I believe.
>> >>
>> >> So what can I do?
>> >
>> >Let's see,
>> >host 206.204.10.200
>> >200.10.204.206.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer security.symantec.com.
>> >
>> >Hmm, belongs to symantec.com
>> >
>> >I bet there may be a Contact Us in their web page http://symantec.com/

>>
>> If that is correct then my mistake!
>> I actually asked them to scan my ports using their security check site.
>>
>> But then is not the abuse address that I wrote correct?
>>
>> TIA.
>>
>>
>>

>
> you're an idiot.


I have already posted a response. I have no idea why it has not appeared.
Any way all I said was that everyone can make a mistake.

I did not know the ip belonged to symantec.

Now I am posting this from linux I just hope this appears!

>
> go ahead folks, find some small way to state this guy isn't an idiot....
> I dare you.... he ASK symantec to scan him, then he REPORTS them for
> abuse....
>
>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bit Twister
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:22:36 +0530, Ravi wrote:

> It appears that I must report abuse to: (E-Mail Removed)
>
> But then is not the abuse address that I wrote correct?


I do not remember the commands to check if the email account is valid.

You report abuse to the ISP who owns the offending ip address.

If it comes from a business, I contact them first, if it continues,
then I contact their ISP.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ravi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:11:55 GMT, Bit Twister
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:22:36 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>
>> It appears that I must report abuse to: (E-Mail Removed)
>>
>> But then is not the abuse address that I wrote correct?

>
>I do not remember the commands to check if the email account is valid.
>
>You report abuse to the ISP who owns the offending ip address.
>
>If it comes from a business, I contact them first, if it continues,
>then I contact their ISP.


I got this information:

OrgName: ConXioN Corporation
OrgID: CONX
Address: 4201 Burton Drive
City: Santa Clara
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 95054
Country: US

NetRange: 206.204.0.0 - 206.204.255.255
CIDR: 206.204.0.0/16
NetName: CONXION
NetHandle: NET-206-204-0-0-1
Parent: NET-206-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.CONXION.NET
NameServer: NS2.CONXION.NET
NameServer: NS3.CONXION.NET
NameServer: NS4.CONXION.NET
Comment:
RegDate: 1995-07-17
Updated: 2002-12-19

AbuseHandle: ABUSE150-ARIN
AbuseName: Abuse
AbusePhone: +1-408-566-8500
AbuseEmail: (E-Mail Removed)

TechHandle: CO-ORG-ARIN
TechName: ConXioN
TechPhone: +1-408-566-8500
TechEmail: (E-Mail Removed)

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-12-01 19:15
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS
database.

OrgName: ConXioN Corporation
OrgID: CONX
Address: 4201 Burton Drive
City: Santa Clara
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 95054
Country: US
Comment:
RegDate: 1995-04-19
Updated: 2001-12-17

# ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2003-12-01 19:15
# Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS
database.

So I think the abuse address is right? And actually there is
no mention of symantec.

--
main(){char s[37]="CSbwjAjocpy/mw!PS!sbwjAeftqbnnfe/dpn";
int i;for(i=0;i<36;putchar(s[i++]-1));return 0;}
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bit Twister
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-23-2003
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:41:15 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>>> It appears that I must report abuse to: (E-Mail Removed)
>>>
>>> But then is not the abuse address that I wrote correct?

>
> AbuseHandle: ABUSE150-ARIN
> AbuseName: Abuse
> AbusePhone: +1-408-566-8500
> AbuseEmail: (E-Mail Removed)
>
> So I think the abuse address is right?


Well the abuse is a valid ip address alright.

> And actually there is no mention of symantec.


You are correct.
symantec has the ip address.
You asked who was the ISP provider for symantec's ip address.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ravi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2003
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:40:56 GMT, Bit Twister
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 22:41:15 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>>>> It appears that I must report abuse to: (E-Mail Removed)
>>>>
>>>> But then is not the abuse address that I wrote correct?

>>
>> AbuseHandle: ABUSE150-ARIN
>> AbuseName: Abuse
>> AbusePhone: +1-408-566-8500
>> AbuseEmail: (E-Mail Removed)
>>
>> So I think the abuse address is right?

>
>Well the abuse is a valid ip address alright.


This is an automatically generated Delivery Status
Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed
due to a permanent error.

<(E-Mail Removed)>:
12.158.34.245 does not like recipient.
Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 <(E-Mail Removed)>... User
unknown Giving up on 12.158.34.245.


>> And actually there is no mention of symantec.

>
>You are correct.
>symantec has the ip address.
>You asked who was the ISP provider for symantec's ip address.


--
main(){char s[37]="CSbwjAjocpy/mw!PS!sbwjAeftqbnnfe/dpn";
int i;for(i=0;i<36;putchar(s[i++]-1));return 0;}
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bit Twister
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2003
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:46:25 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>
><(E-Mail Removed)>:
> 12.158.34.245 does not like recipient.
> Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 <(E-Mail Removed)>... User
> unknown Giving up on 12.158.34.245.


You are correct, it is broke. Maybe conxion.net outsouced
it offshore.

Maybe you could goto http://www.conxion.net and see if there is a
place to tell them about the email problem. Or thy mailing them a
letter.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ravi
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2003
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 02:26:16 GMT, Bit Twister
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 07:46:25 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>>
>><(E-Mail Removed)>:
>> 12.158.34.245 does not like recipient.
>> Remote host said: 550 5.1.1 <(E-Mail Removed)>... User
>> unknown Giving up on 12.158.34.245.

>
>You are correct, it is broke. Maybe conxion.net outsouced
>it offshore.


Ok. You appear to be posting from:
United States
California
Los Angeles

Is that correct?

Why have you not set your tz to
-08:00
?


>
>Maybe you could goto http://www.conxion.net and see if there is a
>place to tell them about the email problem. Or thy mailing them a
>letter.



--
main(){char s[37]="CSbwjAjocpy/mw!PS!sbwjAeftqbnnfe/dpn";
int i;for(i=0;i<36;putchar(s[i++]-1));return 0;}
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bit Twister
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-24-2003
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:21:32 +0530, Ravi wrote:
>
> Ok. You appear to be posting from:
> United States
> California
> Los Angeles
>
> Is that correct?


Ummm, I posted from 24.1.212.248. Dallas TX.

> Why have you not set your tz to
> -08:00


My clock says
date
Tue Dec 23 23:01:09 CST 2003

of if you like
date --utc
Wed Dec 24 05:01:39 UTC 2003

Do you think the time you see is the time the newsserver has???
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nikon Scan vs Vuescan, Nikon Scan smears detail, why (0/1) melbjer@hotmail.com Digital Photography 3 08-09-2008 02:52 AM
Best to scan in 48 Bit HDR? Or use 48 Bit + modify during scan? NewScanner Digital Photography 9 01-16-2007 04:07 AM
Attempts on UDP Port 18332 DaveG NZ Computing 1 03-07-2005 12:23 AM
What do you can a scan that attempts to establish a connection with open port with two small packets todhunter5 Computer Security 1 12-24-2003 04:37 AM
Progressive scan dvd's on a non-progressive scan tv jack lift DVD Video 7 12-09-2003 06:01 PM



Advertisments